Nope........ wrong decree buddy. It was not the first decree of Atraxerxes given to Ezra 7:11 (457BC).
It was his later decree of Nehemiah 2.....445BC. 173,880 days later was the triumphal entry.
The absurdity and heresy of Preterism
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
It was his later decree of Nehemiah 2.....445BC. 173,880 days later was the triumphal entry.
The reconstitution and immense blessing that comes TO ISRAEL in the millennial reign after the second coming.
The biggest mistake the reformers made was kicking Israel to the curb. Absolutely outrageous.
I don't know buddy. I really don't think too much about it. Just chatting here casually....
While Alcazar may have been the first modern writer to articulate a preterist position, the position itself does not rest on Alcazar's ideas themselves, but directly on historical evidence and interpretation of Scripture.
lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....
Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'
E.G.
Yikes!lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....
Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'
E.G.
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.
Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.
That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions.
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.
Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.
That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions.
We are only replying to the Preterism you endorsed - Alcazarian Preterism
How did my comment "endorse" Alcazarian preterism?
You've defined Preterism around Alcazar's work. Perhaps inadvertently.
But it helps - most of us know didly about it
Sure. While you may not have done so intentionally, you equated "preterism" with "full preterism". That is simply not valid. By doing so, you misrepresent partial preterism, demonize those who hold to it, and discourage those who are honestly curious from doing their own study on the matter.
Further, you equate the attribution of historical events to prophetic events in Revelation "taking away from the words of this book". Sorry, you're simply wrong there, and have nothing more substantial than fearmongering to support your assertion.
That all said, I do respect the irenic attitude that you display in the midst of these all-too-harsh discussions.
Actually I didn't equate preterism with full preterism, which is why I specified 'full preterism' after using on the word 'preterism.'
lol. Alcazar proposed that the New Jerusalem was the Holy See in Rome....
Rev: 21 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Not 'prepared for her girlfriend...'
E.G.
They want the push for homosexuality for population reduction, and acceptability, and when the New Age Christ starts working in the world they will forbid a man and a woman from coming together for population reduction.
Whoever is Pope at the time of the New Age Christ working in the world will be the head of the unified religious system, and the Vatican the headquarters.
We are in the end time big time.
I think you are referring to the later decree in 444 B.C., which was merely a reinstatement of his original decree in 457 B.C.
Furthermore, if we begin reckoning the 70 Weeks at 444, we end up at 39 B.C., which is well beyond everything:
Jesus was about 30 years old in 27 A.D....
which means the Triumphal Entry - which so many point to as the fulfillment of "Messiah the Prince", claiming "Messiah" means "Commander" - and Crucifixion could have been no later than 31 A.D....
which means the remaining 3 1/2 years of the 70th Week expired no later than 34 B.C. - well before 39 B.C.
Here are your words:
“Preterism is one of the most destructive teachings out there. The full preterist believes that all of matthew 24, as well as all of the events of Revelation have already taken place, including the resurrection.”
You go from stating that “preterism is one of the most destructive teachings” to mentioning one component of full preterism. There was no distinction between the views. The unlearned reader would assume they are the same thing.
The second decree is not merely a reinstatement. It is an embellishment and reactionary to the request of Nehemiah. The accusation was that they were building a wall Ezra 4:13, which the first decree arguably did not allow. Nehemiah was allowed to return with letters in hand to accomplish this task.
Yes of course the math doesn't work. It isn't supposed to work it will never work. There are only 69 weeks of years between 445BC and the triumphal entry. There is no mathematical prophecy pointing to 70 A.D.